Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in a Case of Abduction and Rape

Must Read

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

Follow us

On 18th August 2020, the High Court of Allahabad had granted anticipatory bail to Pratap (Accused Applicant) who was arrested on charges of Abduction and Rape, among other charges. The case concerns Pratap vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others, with the bench consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh.

Facts of the Case 

The Prosecutrix (victim) visited her parents’ home. Mukesh, the Co-Accused was her neighbour. On 6th September 2019 at 1:30 pm the victim had gone out to buy some articles along with Daichi, the wife of Mukesh. During this outing, Mukesh abducted the Prosecutrix and administered her with stupefying drugs. These drugs rendered her unconscious. After that, the Accused took her to a house near the Railway line. She was kept there for a few days. Mukesh and one other person, namely, Jija Pratap (Accused) had raped her. The Prosecutrix submitted that Daichi had beaten and threatened her.

Soon after,  the victim got hold of a telephone from a child. The child had disclosed the name of the village where she had been brought. The victim then telephoned her mother. Nevertheless, she was soon shifted to the marital home of Daichi where Mukesh’s brother, Babban,  had forcibly raped her when she refused to marry him.

Meanwhile, the Police had come in search of the Prosecutrix. On 23rd September 2019 at around 1 pm, the victim was again drugged by Pratap. She was taken to Farrukhabad by Mukesh and Pratap. After that, somebody had telephoned her brother. Following this, she was then was taken home. 

After her return, her family filed an FIR. The charges filed against the Accused were under Sections 328, 342, 323, 504, 506, 376D, 120B of the IPC. The complaint was lodged at the Police Station at Sihani Gate, in Ghaziabad. During the pendency of the investigation, the accused, Pratap, filed for anticipatory bail.

Submissions filed before the Court 

The Counsel for the Applicant argued that the victim has falsely implicated the Accused Applicant. The Counsel stated that this was due to the existence of some dispute with Mukesh, her neighbour. The Counsel argued that she refused to get herself medically examined. This fact is evident, from the evidence adduced.

Additionally, the Counsel submitted that Pratap has no criminal history. The Counsel argued that Pratap was falsely implicated due to an existing monetary dispute between the Prosecutrix and Mukesh. This dispute was allegedly about the supply of milk.

The Counsel further stated that the family members of the Prosecutrix had earlier filed an FIR bearing No. 1634 of 2010 under Section 354 IPC, PS of Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad. The family later compromised on the FIR, after receiving money. 

The family of the victim lodged the FIR after a delay of about five months. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 6th September 2019. However, the FIR had been filed on 3rd February 2020. Thus, the Counsel argued that Pratap has an apprehension of imminent arrest. If the Accused were to be released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.

Further, the Applicant’s Counsel argued that the Prosecutrix’s statements are inconsistent, with regards to the place of occurrence of the rape. The FIR states that Mukesh and Babban had committed rape upon her in the village, Alam. However, in her statement under the same section, she has said that all the three accused, i.e. Mukesh, Pratap and Babban, had committed rape upon her in Purthi village. Therefore, there is variation in the place of occurrence also in statements by the Prosecutrix.

However, the AGA for the State had vehemently opposed the prayer for granting bail for Pratap. Under Section 164 of the CrPC, the Prosecutrix has supported the prosecution version.

Observations of the Court 

Considering the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there was no possibility of the accused fleeing from justice. The Court further stated that the Applicant was entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The Court instructed him to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 before the competent court, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer.  

The Court set the following conditions for the Accused’s bail: First, the Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. Second, the Applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. Third, the Applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

The Court directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation expeditiously within three months.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -